On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:17 PM, James A. Peltier <jpeltier at sfu.ca> wrote:
> |
> | It's technology, not fashion. If the 'new' breaks old documented
> | processes it isn't moving forward, it is just different. If it is
> | really better, it should easily maintain backwards compatibility.
> |
> My case is that the new fashion has been that way for years as deemed by the Upstream Provider. If the end user that being us admins, can't keep up with the vendors way of doing this then we should be sysadmins.
And my case is that things that don't maintain backwards compatibility
for arbitrary reasons waste other people's time unnecessarily and are
thus philosophically evil. The details don't matter much. People
should be able to reuse their work.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com